Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio Categoriae:Eruditi" differant

Content deleted Content added
Linea 46:
::::Therefore, as UV says, the two categories ''could'' be merged: eruditi covers all. Any comments on whether it is ''useful'' to distinguish scientists from others? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 15:17, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
::::: Per Alex1011 and Andrew, I made [[:Categoria:Scientiae periti]] a subcategory of [[:Categoria:Eruditi]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:48, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
See also [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#Inflatio Nederlandica?]] --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:31, 29 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, now, looking at how the categories are working out, I do not think that anyone benefits from keeping the two parallel category trees, Eruditi and Scientiae periti, apart. Each of them has two branches: one into specialities (which are useful); the other into scholars/scientists-by-country (which are also useful). I am thinking of asking the help of UVBot to do some mergers, so that eventually we would have a single supercategory (Eruditi, scholars including scientists). It would still branch, as before, on one side into a tree of specialities; on the other side, when the mergers are done, into a tree of scholars-and-scientists by country. But no need to puzzle over whether any particular person is an eruditus or a scientiae peritus. How do others feel about that? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 14:39, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Eruditi".